Generally: Am I the Anti-christ?

It appears that the term " Anti Christ " is exlusively Johns. Everyone that does not believe in Christ is considered an Anti Christ by definition. Read carefully. This is not one man. This is men not walking or believing in Christ period. Its a warning.

Anti=not with or against

Where do we get all of this conjecture about the Antichrist being a good mand an then being taken over? There are 4 references to the Antichrist in the Bible. They are right below. See anything else?

The rest of the Antichrist fire and Brimstone comes from unfounded Prophecy.




1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Dont worry. God and Christ have this well in hand.

Peace

Think about it. If Jesus had a son with mary magdeline (who FYI is not a hooker so they now know - it was a huge smear campaign by the church as they wanted jesus to be "the son of god", but he was just a king),

That son survives in secret, has sons and daughters, (eg two, and they each have 3 - thats 9 descendants already, two thousand years later their are thousands upon thousands of bloodlines all over the world that somewhere down the line intersect with the christ bloodline........

The antichrist is supposed to come from the bloodline of christ, the yang of the yin. Maybe their is a little christ, or more accurately antichrist, in all of us. Maybe thats the whole point? That the whole concept of Antichrist is a huge metaphor. That we are destined, if you will, to destroy ourselves.......makes you think.........

John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Shadow88]

he is a nephilim. It is a blond haired opaque blue eyed (no dot) person in a cape(pladian?)

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Xenopathic_Investigator]

A person who wishes to remain anonymous has a few odd things I noticed that I feel wouldn't be out of place in the anti-Christ's profile.


He wants to help people get together and create a grassroots 1 world gov't in order to fix the problem of the inequalities between peoples and avoid the eventual dire environmental problems we all face. He is considered to be of genius level intellect according to the educational powers that be. He doesn't believe Jesus died on the cross so his blood could wash away his sins and save him, even though he's read 3 versions the bible, and attended a Christian school for 3 years. In fact, he would refuse to let anyone but himself, including Jesus, pay for his sins on principal.
His first name means, "born of fire.".
He was born on the date of Lupercalia, the celebration of Pan, the goat-legged, horned God of fertility, lust, and nature, that was used as the model for our most popular image of the devil.
He was born in the year of the dragon, a symbol of the devil from Revelations, and dragons are also considered born of fire. He is an Aquarius, apt since it is the start of that age. And his ascendent is also Aquarius. The dawning of Pisces 2000 yrs. ago had a clear fish theme.
Besides the sun, he has Mercury, Mars, and Saturn in Aquarius too, and they are all very closely packed together, which according to astrologists I have consulted signifies a very fiery emotional personality.
He doesn't believe that there really is a god the way religion defines it.
His numerology life number is one, whatever that means.
He has had paranormal experiences all his life including dreams that came true in exact detail.
He has walked away without a scratch from a number, 5 or so, life threatening event that likely should have killed him, or at least injured him.
He, of course, totally denies the possibility, and if he is Satan, has no knowledge of it.

He is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-capital punishment, and pro-euthanasia, and he hopes someday we will do away with prisons altogether.
But on the anti-anti-Christ side, he is no longer blonde haired, it is almost totally grey now, and his eyes used to look more blue as a child, but are now clearly not. They are more hazel than blue now. And the Rh negative blood theory that Icke writes of sounds unlikely, but this guy I know does happen to have 0 -ve blood, which Icke contends reveals a blueblood, Martian/Reptilian ancestry.... A little farfetched sounding to these ears.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I wouldn't worry about being the anti-Christ, incognita. My first mother in law doesn't even know this site exists, so you can't be her!

You would probably know if you were the anti-christ

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
A person who wishes to remain anonymous has a few odd things I noticed that I feel wouldn't be out of place in the anti-Christ's profile.

(deletia)

His first name means, "born of fire.".

He was born on the date of Lupercalia... (snip)

He was born in the year of the dragon...(snip)

He is an Aquarius... (snip)

And his ascendent is also Aquarius... (snip)

Besides the sun, he has Mercury, Mars, and Saturn in Aquarius too... (snip)

His numerology life number is one, whatever that means... (snip)

What is the point of wishing to remain anonymous while divulging so much personally identifying information, at least to those who can "do the math"? Or are you attempting to point the finger at someone in a veiled accusation?

I assume this person is not yourself.

The cape thing was funny, though.

Well, since I stopped believing in the prince of darkness thirty years ago, I do not feel there is such a thing as the anti-Christ. That said, I recall my dad saying to me to never assume anything, because when you assume you make an a** out of u and me.

The only word that I know that means "born of fire" is Igneous, and what a crappy childhood that would be, and what cruel parents. Then I was wondering why you would be consulting an astrologer for a friend... so it was either you, or a very very close friend, like maybe a gay lover, or that you were just making stuff up... I couldn't decide which. Anywho, glad to hear it ain't me.

Look in your closet. Do you have several scary red outfits with hoods and horns? How many pitchforks do you own. Do you have followers? Do they listen to a lot of industrial goth and think that they are mysterious and more perceptive than others. Do you have a tail?

Do you lead by misleading? Do you feel that sheep's clothing hides your true indentity? Do you listen to new age music in the nude? Do you think it is necesssary to raise your voice while talking on a cell phone? Do you say things like "s'up dog?" or watch The View or Entertainment Tonight or American Idol? Do you have mean plans for the world that include shopping saver cards?

havent owned a tv for over eight years, own one black cape, have no aspirations of leading by misleading, no mean plans, but.....listening to new age music in the nude? and saying s'up dog, as well as chill homey, and terms ride for car, crib for house and shorty ... no comment.
The other meaning of the first name is 'handsome'. And though not gay, very pro-gay.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The other meaning of the first name is 'handsome'.

OMG, the AntiChrist...it's Spuds MacKenzie!

Oh wait, he's a bit young for the astro-data, isn't he?

...maybe Kenny from South Park?

Come ON.

*yawns*

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Stegosaur]

Where there is smoke there is fire, so I ask, why is it that he is the only one who never divulges his plans? And, why does he end up getting killed? The other candidates might be Kenny Rogers and Kenny G, two successful musicians, and music has often been associated with the devil.
I just wonder why some people, who I imagine would have to believe in Christ, to believe in the Devil, would side with Satan? Jesus vs. Satan, and they pick Satan? I root for the underdog sometimes but not if the two choices are between good and evil. I feel that good will always be the better side to take, if you had to choose. The Satanists are, imho, following the inevitable loser, unless anti-christ beats Christ which I cant see as being likely.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I just wonder why some people, who I imagine would have to believe in Christ, to believe in the Devil, would side with Satan? Jesus vs. Satan, and they pick Satan?

Rebellion? Shock value? Maybe they believe in God but not Jesus? Maybe they think Satan IS God? I'm not really sure about that one. I will have to research and speak to some of them personally. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I don't know what they are.

I root for the underdog sometimes but not if the two choices are between good and evil. I feel that good will always be the better side to take, if you had to choose. The Satanists are, imho, following the inevitable loser, unless anti-christ beats Christ which I cant see as being likely.

When a person's perception is forced into religious duality, I suppose they would feel compelled to choose one or the other, eh?

I don't ascribe to this view as I do not believe it is anywhere close to the complete picture, the truth, or the reality of the issue.

I think one should choose to do the right thing whenever possible however, sometimes the right thing is not as black and white as many would like to believe.

Take the hypothetical scenario where a murderer is let go because the victim's body was discovered during an "illegally performed" search and seizure. Which is "right"?

Do we disregard the laws that WE enacted to protect ourselves from the abuse of official power in order to prosecute a murderer while violating his civil rights? This action would, of course, set the legal precedent to violate the civil rights of others in the future who may be innocent. Or do we let him go on a technicality, which is in compliance with the law?

Meanwhile an innocent person is convicted of the crime, because the real killer's attorney cannot violate the confidentiality privilege and divulge that his client confessed to the crime but was let off on aforementioned technicality.

Which is "right"? Who defines it? What price is too high when all choices seem terrible? When there has to be a scapegoat, who plays the part?

Where is the fine line drawn between brave vigilante, superhero, and villian? Is it in the eye of the beholder? Does it depend on what side you are on? What if you see both sides?

Take, for example, the film "Boondock Saints". Technically, they were serial killers who were violating the law by committing murder. However, they only took out those who fit a certain criteria: mob bosses, hitmen, pimps, drug dealers, etc. They were unethical and undesirable in the eyes of "god fearing men", deserving extermination. But I'm sure the families of such men wouldn't have agreed, especially their mothers, their wives, and their children.

Perhaps an extreme case, but maybe Hitler felt the same way about those who didn't fit his criteria. I'm not in any way saying the Jews deserved the Holocaust. I'm speaking about the mentality of the whole thing, those who believe they are above the law because what they are doing serves a "higher law". We frequently see this line of thinking in those considered terrorists AND occupiers. The only difference is that occupiers maintain the appearance of supremacy (power) and therefore can enact laws (usually with the consent of the general public) against those they feel deserve extermination, and they make it legal to do so.

I do not believe I have to give any examples of this, as it has been demonstrated countless times throughout history in every culture there has ever been.

Christ/AntiChrist. American/Iraqi. Capitalist/Communist. Republican/Democrat. Us/Them. Self/Other.
>

Pick a side, any side, as long as you PICK A SIDE, right?
Yes, and please, stay inside the lines when you color, too. We like things nice and neat around here, thank you very much.

Which would you like to wear today? Fleece or horns?

One man's Saviour is another man's Satan.

(Are you feeling fenced in yet?)



[edit on 1-8-2005 by Stegosaur]

To join evil, sign on the dotted line and join the minions where you can be JUST AS ORIGINAL AS ALL THE OTHERS.

When the couldron fondue party is over and the hats and tails come off, it'll be "so long suckers and don't forget to wear your sunscreen."

Flies have but one use when the hungry spider must finally eat.

Line from Adam--David......product of Kings and Queens of France, England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Spain, Italy, Israel, Egypt and more......recently came to realization that Jesus was only a Prophet......but I believe in God......many predictions that AC will come from Middle East......but is this just a ruse?

I say that you are only as much of an Anti-Christ as you decide to be.

Here's my thinking: Christianity teaches that we are free to choose between good and evil. This means that you will not wake up one morning with an uncontrollable urge to destroy Christiandom.

The Bible says that a son is not meant to bear the sins of his father, and so Christianity cannot claim that there are evil bloodlines.

Here's a personal opinion: There are many people who are Anti-Christian. If they had a leader, he would simply be the Leader of the Anti-Christians, but not necessarily the Anti-Christ. My feeling is that one would have to have an absolute perfect knowledge that Christ came to earth, suffered for man's sins, died for us, and was resurrected. You would have to have a perfect knowledge of that stuff before you could become the true epitome of evil and completely turn against Christ. So far, Christians have a faith in Christ. Anyone attempting to destroy Christianity would simply have an anti-faith in Christ. They don't know for a surety that they are truly rebelling against God - they can only believe it as much as a Christian believes that Jesus will save him. Certainly only those who have witnessed the Resurrected Christ have this perfect knowledge, and these include all apostles, a few close disciples, and Mr. Satan himself who is always hanging around watching stuff.

Christian leaders share a common opinion that an Anti-Christ can also refer to anyone who would attempt to counterfeit the truth of the Christian Gospel and subtly lead people astray.

hmmm...

Well, here's an angle.

Since the main difference between Lucifer and Jesus was supposed to be the argument over weither or not men should have free will, wouldn't the Anti-Christ be someone who renewed the vigor to remove free will from human kind. Someone who might think that they honestly know without a doubt what's absolutely best for everyone and that their way should be followed without question if anyone wants to be saved? (i.e. Tom Cruise, George Bush, etc.) But that wouldn't be enough. They couldn't just want to have their way followed, they would have to be willing and able to use any means necessary to achieve those means. They would need to have Power, Money, and be someone with a lot of influence (i.e. Tom Cruise, George Bush, the Olsen Twins, etc.) And hey don't laugh it off, those Olsen Twins have influenced an entire generation of young girls, and hey, some people say that women were the downfall of mankind. I had a punk tell me that just the other day, what a jerk. Back on topic: So we're talking about someone here filled with a righteous indignant arrogance and superiority complex to boot. Tom Cruise's interview on the Today Show keeps popping into my head for some reason...

Any takers?

Originally posted by Incognita
Since the main difference between Lucifer and Jesus was supposed to be the argument over weither or not men should have free will...

I am curious as to your source for this. Please elaborate on where this theory originated and any supporting documentation, for I am not familiar with any instance where Lucifer & Jesus debated over the issue of Man's free will. I would love to read it.